Not a horrible article, but pretty slanted, IMO.
On the one hand, the author is promoting sound scientific management of bears (which I agree with), but then complaining about the best available science for estimating populations. Why? Because the numbers don't fit an agenda? Even if the numbers are conservative (which they probably are), the best science available still says the numbers are high enough to warrant delisting and management returning to the States. THAT should be the discussion, not complaining about the best available science and practices to estimate populations. In particular on the duly noted fact that population estimates on grizzly bear populations are not easily acquired.
Its a pretty common practice in Wildlife Management of any animal to be conservative with population estimates, deer, elk, pronghorn etc. when considering season setting, quotas, etc. The goal is to avoid the peaks and valleys of huge population swings.
I also thinks it irresponsible to use human fatalities and injuries caused by grizzlies as the argument to kill more bears. If we want to head down that road, then should we also be advocating for killing off large portions of our deer herds because of fatalities caused from vehicle collisions with deer, elk, etc.? About 200 people per year die in vehicle collisions with wildlife like deer, elk, etc. On average, about 2 people per year die from a bear attack (black and grizzly combined) in North America. Statistically, and logically, it makes more sense to reduce the deer, elk, moose etc. populations in half to reduce vehicle/wildlife collisions and the resulting 200 annual human fatalities, if the true goal and argument is simply saving human lives.
Sensationalism doesn't work for me...and facts matter. The fact is, I'm infinitely more likely to die in a vehicle collusion with a deer than I am from being killed by a bear. And that both are extremely unlikely to happen, but none the less tragic when they do happen.
But, I'm not going to be advocating to kill off 50% more of our deer and elk to save a person from, or reduce my odds of being killed in a wildlife/vehicle collision, any more than I'm going to advocate killing off 50% of the bears in North America because 2 people are killed annually either.
The debate should be focused on the facts. The facts are that the grizzly bear numbers are above the threshold to trigger delisting (via the best available science), the ESA worked, hunters in Wyoming have spent over 50 million in grizzly management, and management should be given to the States. Part of those State Management plans should include limited grizzly hunting opportunities.
Hold the sensationalism and fluff...stick to the science and stick to the facts.